[fdo-internals] Re: [Incubator] Motion for FDO to graduate
greg.boone at autodesk.com
Mon Jan 28 19:07:08 EST 2008
I do not have the details available to answer the FDO Contributor Agreement specified below. I will have to discuss this question with Bob Bray and respond to the group based on that conversation.
From: incubator-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:incubator-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Greg Boone
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 4:03 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List; Arnulf Christl
Subject: RE: [fdo-internals] Re: [Incubator] Motion for FDO to graduate incubation
[GregBoone] See inline...
From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org [mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Morissette
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 10:37 AM
To: Arnulf Christl
Cc: OSGeo-incubator; FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: [fdo-internals] Re: [Incubator] Motion for FDO to graduate incubation
Arnulf Christl wrote:
> just to show that I really read the documents... :-)
> There is a minor typo in:
> "PSC members voting "+1" for a change request are expected to to stay
> engaged and ensure the..."
[GregBoone] This typo has been resolved
> Just for the records - I am interested in how the initial PSC came into
> being. Maybe it is just the old hen and egg question.
> Another minor typo in:
> "You accept and agree to the following terms and conditions for Your
> present and future Contributions submitted to the Foundation fro use
> with the FDO Project."
[GregBoone] Bob Bray will need to resolve this issue. Once that is done, the document will be re-posted.
I have filed a ticket about the typos:
With respect to the chicken and egg question, I don't remember myself
how and when the PSC came into being. Hopefully Greg can add that info
to the project's PSC page.
[GregBoone] The FDO PSC came into being in October 2006. Bob Bray initially organized myself and Orest Halustchak from Autodesk, as well as Frank Warmerdam from the GDAL project, Jason Birch from the City of Nanaimo, and Mateusz Loskot a freelance GIS software consultant to meet and form the FDO PSC. Haris Kurtagic was subsequently added as a member. The minutes of that first PSC meeting can be found at : http://trac.osgeo.org/fdo/wiki/PscMeeting20061030. The OSGeo Board subsequently approved the application by the FDO project to enter incubation in March 2007. Further details on the history of FDO and the associated software releases can be found at http://fdo.osgeo.org/history.html and http://fdo.osgeo.org/roadMap.html
> It would be informative to see where PSC members are employed / self
Jeroen already asked for that info...
> It says that a new CLA has been put into place:
> I should probably know - but could you point out what the changes to the
> one were that we have agreed on? In the end this is a document from the
> Foundation so we should know. (Maybe I missed that part but if I did
> then we can be sure that others will have missed it too).
I believe the FDO Contributor Agreement was derived from the MapGuide
one ... not sure what the changes were if any. I'll let Greg (and
possibly Bob) comment on that.
> I don't want to start yet another round of painful lawyers talk but.
> Those really long sentences are not exactly intelligible without a large
> magnifying glass. As this will probably be the last chance to really
> have a look at them, could you please translate the following section to
> standard English.
> "Grant of Patent License." [...]
> "If any entity (a "Litigant") institutes patent litigation against You
> or any other entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a
> lawsuit) alleging that your Contribution, or the Work to which you have
> contributed, constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement,
> then any patent licenses granted to that Litigant under this Agreement
> for that Contribution or Work shall terminate as of the date such
> litigation is filed."
> Does this effectively mean that anybody litigating the Foundation or
> contributor automatically loses the royalty free, free of charge patent
> license that they received by using the software? Then this is probably
> just a formal retribution that is required to fend off litigant's claims
> on that software. Please correct me if I got this completely wrong.
I seem to remember a discussion about this but cannot track it down.
IANAL so I will not venture to try to answer this question myself.
fdo-internals mailing list
fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
Incubator mailing list
Incubator at lists.osgeo.org
More information about the fdo-internals